See this is the problem now day's, the photo you posted and then there's this one floating around the internet, 2 completely contradictory pieces of information on pretty much the same thing
Latter one is from Guido so can be safely ignored as it's probably untrue.
See this is the problem now day's, the photo you posted and then there's this one floating around the internet, 2 completely contradictory pieces of information on pretty much the same thing
Does that 11bn include the fact he wants to ditch the fees from September onwards? Unlikely I'd say.
Also just seen he's wanting to scrap the 30bn of student fee debt already owed. Wonder if that's coming from his money tree as well?
Changing tack slightly, it was curious that on more than one occasion Corbyn used the 'homeless people in our train stations' soundbite as if homelessness was invented in 2010.
In fact in the UK it peaked in 2003, fully six years into a Labour government.
I don't have the figures for 2003, but the number of rough sleepers in the UK has increased by 134% in the past six years
Homelessness includes more than just rough sleepers and yes it has increased since 2010, but my point was that it actually peaked at much higher levels in 2003 under Labour.
So if you believe that Tory cuts have caused the recent spike in homelessness (seems fair to assume it has been a partial contributory factor), then one needs an alternative explanation for what happened under Labour last time (unsurprisingly Corbyn keeps quiet on this one!).
What happened between 2003 and 2010 then?
I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that Labour failed the homeless.
If you ignore the brief six years to 2003 and the absolute levels it reached!
So during the Labour years it rose by about 70 before falling by 210, so a net improvement of 140 to record lows, and you're seriously trying to paint this as a Labour failure?
Did you expect it to drop overnight once Blair crushed Major? Should Tony, Prezza, Campbell, Gordon and co been out Friday the morning after with the cement mixers building new homes?
Might you understand how Maggie selling off over half the housing stock may have been a factor in Labour not immediately solving the issue?
No. Still the same number of houses and (without Labour's laissez-faire attitude to immigration) still the same number of people. Now, add in Labour's deliberate policy of getting as many immigrants as possible through the door +3.6mn and might you understand that, partially, the housing shortage is of Labour's making? (Of course, it's got worse since as numbers of people that live in the UK has increased further. But that doesn't give Labour absolution does it?)
Two fallacies there regarding 'selling houses means same number of people waiting for a home' (yes, same number of people on the waiting list but now less homes!) and that open door immigration increases numbers of homeless (red herring as councils ought to be increasing stock to meet demand regardless of citizenship).
Most migrants are not eligible for assistance if homeless. They would need to have indefinite leave to remain or be considered habitually resident, or in the case of EU migrants, be considered to be Workers. For local authorities to have a homelessness duty in addition to being eligible, they would also need to be in priority need (having children or some other vulnerability) and unintentionally homeless.
Changing tack slightly, it was curious that on more than one occasion Corbyn used the 'homeless people in our train stations' soundbite as if homelessness was invented in 2010.
In fact in the UK it peaked in 2003, fully six years into a Labour government.
I don't have the figures for 2003, but the number of rough sleepers in the UK has increased by 134% in the past six years
Homelessness includes more than just rough sleepers and yes it has increased since 2010, but my point was that it actually peaked at much higher levels in 2003 under Labour.
So if you believe that Tory cuts have caused the recent spike in homelessness (seems fair to assume it has been a partial contributory factor), then one needs an alternative explanation for what happened under Labour last time (unsurprisingly Corbyn keeps quiet on this one!).
What happened between 2003 and 2010 then?
I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that Labour failed the homeless.
If you ignore the brief six years to 2003 and the absolute levels it reached!
So during the Labour years it rose by about 70 before falling by 210, so a net improvement of 140 to record lows, and you're seriously trying to paint this as a Labour failure?
Did you expect it to drop overnight once Blair crushed Major? Should Tony, Prezza, Campbell, Gordon and co been out Friday the morning after with the cement mixers building new homes?
Might you understand how Maggie selling off over half the housing stock may have been a factor in Labour not immediately solving the issue?
No. Still the same number of houses and (without Labour's laissez-faire attitude to immigration) still the same number of people. Now, add in Labour's deliberate policy of getting as many immigrants as possible through the door +3.6mn and might you understand that, partially, the housing shortage is of Labour's making? (Of course, it's got worse since as numbers of people that live in the UK has increased further. But that doesn't give Labour absolution does it?)
Two fallacies there regarding 'selling houses means same number of people waiting for a home' (yes, same number of people on the waiting list but now less homes!) and that open door immigration increases numbers of homeless (red herring as councils ought to be increasing stock to meet demand regardless of citizenship).
Most migrants are not eligible for assistance if homeless. They would need to have indefinite leave to remain or be considered habitually resident, or in the case of EU migrants, be considered to be Workers. For local authorities to have a homelessness duty in addition to being eligible, they would also need to be in priority need (having children or some other vulnerability) and unintentionally homeless.
So regardless of council house stock immigration levels would basically have no effect on statutory homelessness, statistically speaking?
Just to add to the earlier comments about the bias on here, I was interested so went back and did a back of the fag packet calculation from the preceding 6 pages earlier.
There were contributions from a total of 49 different posters which broke down as follows:
13 broadly pro or supportive of the Tories 27 broadly anti or critical of the Tories 9 where there wasn't an obvious leaning either way due to the nature of the post.
So yes, more anti's than pro as claimed but then again we have split views from Lab, Lib Dem & Green supporters versus Tory (and UKIP I expect) supporters so that might be expected. And certainly nowhere near the 85-90% bias claimed.
The main problem with the original right to buy is that local authorities were not permitted to build replacements. Consequently the amount of social housing stock went down. Unfortunately the Tories decided in 2015 to extend right to buy to housing association tenants, and also increased the RTB discounts. And as a double whammy of epic proportions, the new RTB discounts to be funded by forcing councils to sell off their most valuable housing stock.
Just to add to the earlier comments about the bias on here, I was interested so went back and did a back of the fag packet calculation from the preceding 6 pages earlier.
There were contributions from a total of 49 different posters which broke down as follows:
13 broadly pro or supportive of the Tories 27 broadly anti or critical of the Tories 9 where there wasn't an obvious leaning either way due to the nature of the post.
So yes, more anti's than pro as claimed but then again we have split views from Lab, Lib Dem & Green supporters versus Tory (and UKIP I expect) supporters so that might be expected. And certainly nowhere near the 85-90% bias claimed.
Yeah. I'm sad like that.
Good stats.
Get on to Jezza. With calculations like that you will have Abbotts job waiting if Labour get in power.
Changing tack slightly, it was curious that on more than one occasion Corbyn used the 'homeless people in our train stations' soundbite as if homelessness was invented in 2010.
In fact in the UK it peaked in 2003, fully six years into a Labour government.
I don't have the figures for 2003, but the number of rough sleepers in the UK has increased by 134% in the past six years
Homelessness includes more than just rough sleepers and yes it has increased since 2010, but my point was that it actually peaked at much higher levels in 2003 under Labour.
So if you believe that Tory cuts have caused the recent spike in homelessness (seems fair to assume it has been a partial contributory factor), then one needs an alternative explanation for what happened under Labour last time (unsurprisingly Corbyn keeps quiet on this one!).
The extent of rough sleeping on the streets is a global shame on this country, but if you are looking for a historical context, then you better go back to when it all started. Round about 1986, when the country was supposedly "booming" under Thatcher and Lawson's crazed policies.
See this is the problem now day's, the photo you posted and then there's this one floating around the internet, 2 completely contradictory pieces of information on pretty much the same thing
Does that 11bn include the fact he wants to ditch the fees from September onwards? Unlikely I'd say.
Also just seen he's wanting to scrap the 30bn of student fee debt already owed. Wonder if that's coming from his money tree as well?
The £30bn is money already loaned - so the cost is the loss of income from the loan repayments - estimated I believe at about £2bn a year.
As someone who was working in the government department responsible for housing in the early 2000's, the numbers jumped as local authorities were in the process of doing massive upgrades to their housing stock, which delayed homing lots of people, once decent homes was completed, the numbers dropped at a massive rate.
As someone who was working for a local authority at the time, the upgrades would have progressed more quickly if the Government hadn't insisted that LAs hive off their housing stock to Housing Associations or ALMOs (Arms Length Management Organisations) in order to get the funding to do the work.
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
You make going to state school sound like going to the work house. I know plenty of successful people that haven't didn't even go to grammar school and are earning great money and leading prosperous careers
So do I. Especially in meritocratic industries like advertising.
But at a rough guess I would guess these people are aged 45 or over, right?
Times have changed. If you wanna get in at the advertising agency called Lowe nowadays you better have a damn good degree. MBA an advantage. Which is ironic, since Frank Lowe, whose name the agency bears, started his career in 16 in an ad agency's postroom.
See this is the problem now day's, the photo you posted and then there's this one floating around the internet, 2 completely contradictory pieces of information on pretty much the same thing
The costs of re-nationalising industries is included there where it isn't in the original pic that I posted. That is because the re-nationalisations pay for themselves over time by the "profits" they generate for the taxpayer, rather than for private business.
I like to think of it as installing solar panels on your roof. You might have to pay out a couple of thousand at first, but once you become fully self sufficient and even sell your excess solar energy back to the grid, it pays for itself many times over.
Changing tack slightly, it was curious that on more than one occasion Corbyn used the 'homeless people in our train stations' soundbite as if homelessness was invented in 2010.
In fact in the UK it peaked in 2003, fully six years into a Labour government.
I don't have the figures for 2003, but the number of rough sleepers in the UK has increased by 134% in the past six years
Homelessness includes more than just rough sleepers and yes it has increased since 2010, but my point was that it actually peaked at much higher levels in 2003 under Labour.
So if you believe that Tory cuts have caused the recent spike in homelessness (seems fair to assume it has been a partial contributory factor), then one needs an alternative explanation for what happened under Labour last time (unsurprisingly Corbyn keeps quiet on this one!).
What happened between 2003 and 2010 then?
I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that Labour failed the homeless.
If you ignore the brief six years to 2003 and the absolute levels it reached!
So during the Labour years it rose by about 70 before falling by 210, so a net improvement of 140 to record lows, and you're seriously trying to paint this as a Labour failure?
Did you expect it to drop overnight once Blair crushed Major? Should Tony, Prezza, Campbell, Gordon and co been out Friday the morning after with the cement mixers building new homes?
Might you understand how Maggie selling off over half the housing stock may have been a factor in Labour not immediately solving the issue?
No. Still the same number of houses and (without Labour's laissez-faire attitude to immigration) still the same number of people. Now, add in Labour's deliberate policy of getting as many immigrants as possible through the door +3.6mn and might you understand that, partially, the housing shortage is of Labour's making? (Of course, it's got worse since as numbers of people that live in the UK has increased further. But that doesn't give Labour absolution does it?)
Two fallacies there regarding 'selling houses means same number of people waiting for a home' (yes, same number of people on the waiting list but now less homes!) and that open door immigration increases numbers of homeless (red herring as councils ought to be increasing stock to meet demand regardless of citizenship).
Most migrants are not eligible for assistance if homeless. They would need to have indefinite leave to remain or be considered habitually resident, or in the case of EU migrants, be considered to be Workers. For local authorities to have a homelessness duty in addition to being eligible, they would also need to be in priority need (having children or some other vulnerability) and unintentionally homeless.
So regardless of council house stock immigration levels would basically have no effect on statutory homelessness, statistically speaking?
Correct. Although migrant arrivals moving into the privately rented sector will undoubtedly have impacted on the availability of privately rented properties for all residents.
If you've got time, well worth a read. A wake up call to the absolute clusterfuck and shambles the housing market is in this country (especially london)
As has been mentioned already, most homelessness data relates to statutory homelessness - ie the numbers of homeless households accepted as homeless by local authorities. By definition this data does not include households who, after their application to a local authority, are not accepted because they are deemed ineligible; not homeless; homeless but not in priority need; or homeless, and in priority need but intentionally so. What this means is that the actual number of homeless households will exceed the statistical data by some margin.
Shelter did some interesting work on this at the end of last year where they considered 4 sets of data - - government statistics on rough sleepers (these are collected annually by local authorities and returned to government); - statistics on those who are in temporary accommodation (again, returned to government on a quarterly basis by local authorities, and likely to include households who may eventually not be accepted as homeless) - the number of people housed in hostels - the number of people waiting to be housed by Social Services departments (for example, homeless 16 and 17 year olds who are accepted as a child in need under the Children Act and where Childrens Services have a responsibility to provide accommodation.)
We're not out yet and the decision to leave was voted on LAST YEAR not 3 months ago when we had larger growth than all of the g7 countries.
Wait till Brexit actually happens!
Agree. I hope we are all hugely surprised by the outcome. The result of the election likely to be a hung parliament will mean May won't have the easy ride she wants on this.
Everyone knows what the outcome will be. The little Englanders who voted leave will be walking around for a few years with stupid smirks on their faces thinking they have their country back while the UK economy crashes for the next 10 years before we are begging the EU to let us back in.
i take it you didnt vote leave are you going to continue to sulk about or shall we do a best out of 3
When we know exactly what the Brexit terms are after the completion of the negotiations I believe it would be a grotesque obscenity if the government of the day did not allow the country to decide if those terms are acceptable. Which is why I am voting Lib Dem. There is an outside chance (if the current polls are to be believed - which I don't to be fair) that Labour could form a coalition government with the Lib Dems and the SNP. Allowing the country to accept or reject the terms of the final Brexit deal should be the minimum concession the Lib Dems and SNP extract from Labour in exchange for joining the coalition.
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
You make going to state school sound like going to the work house. I know plenty of successful people that haven't didn't even go to grammar school and are earning great money and leading prosperous careers
So do I. Especially in meritocratic industries like advertising.
But at a rough guess I would guess these people are aged 45 or over, right?
Times have changed. If you wanna get in at the advertising agency called Lowe nowadays you better have a damn good degree. MBA an advantage. Which is ironic, since Frank Lowe, whose name the agency bears, started his career in 16 in an ad agency's postroom.
What industries aren't meritocratic out of interest?
(in my experience the least meritocratic employers are in the public sector with their tightly structured pay scales and promotion based on age/tenure rather than ability)
I'm not sure what to read into this and am not posting this with a political lever to pull but in London only 41% of the 8,000 or so sleeping rough are UK nationals, whilst 37% are from Eastern European countries which joined the EU in 2004 or 2007.
The remainder are from other European countries (10%), Africa (6%), Asia (5%), The Americas (1%) and other (0.1%).
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
You make going to state school sound like going to the work house. I know plenty of successful people that haven't didn't even go to grammar school and are earning great money and leading prosperous careers
So do I. Especially in meritocratic industries like advertising.
But at a rough guess I would guess these people are aged 45 or over, right?
Times have changed. If you wanna get in at the advertising agency called Lowe nowadays you better have a damn good degree. MBA an advantage. Which is ironic, since Frank Lowe, whose name the agency bears, started his career in 16 in an ad agency's postroom.
What industries aren't meritocratic out of interest?
(in my experience the least meritocratic employers are in the public sector with their tightly structured pay scales and promotion based on age/tenure rather than ability)
Not entirely correct (he said on his tea break).
The vast majority of internal public sector promotions will be by competition (in the Civil Service the most common means is by criteria based interviewing, your age and/or length of service have no impact); external recruitment is generally by competition also (and, in the case of Fast Stream entrants to the Civil Service can have young graduates leap frog many existing Civil Servants).
The complaint that you can have about this kind of promotion and recruitment is that it does not promote anyone on their actual ability to do their jobs, but on their ability to sell themselves at interview, once they have got that far.
In general, promotion based on tenure is generally in professional/technical etc. career paths, where indivivduals are actually promoted on ability.
Being, as I am, shy and retiring, I am not best placed to benefit from current promotion systems in the Northern Ireland Civil Service, but I'm very confident that I am equally competent (sometimes even more so) than numbers who have been promoted ahead of me.
No system is perfect, there will always be some promoted above their level of competence, by age and tenure arre not generally the deciding factors.
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
You make going to state school sound like going to the work house. I know plenty of successful people that haven't didn't even go to grammar school and are earning great money and leading prosperous careers
So do I. Especially in meritocratic industries like advertising.
But at a rough guess I would guess these people are aged 45 or over, right?
Times have changed. If you wanna get in at the advertising agency called Lowe nowadays you better have a damn good degree. MBA an advantage. Which is ironic, since Frank Lowe, whose name the agency bears, started his career in 16 in an ad agency's postroom.
What industries aren't meritocratic out of interest?
(in my experience the least meritocratic employers are in the public sector with their tightly structured pay scales and promotion based on age/tenure rather than ability)
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
You make going to state school sound like going to the work house. I know plenty of successful people that haven't didn't even go to grammar school and are earning great money and leading prosperous careers
So do I. Especially in meritocratic industries like advertising.
But at a rough guess I would guess these people are aged 45 or over, right?
Times have changed. If you wanna get in at the advertising agency called Lowe nowadays you better have a damn good degree. MBA an advantage. Which is ironic, since Frank Lowe, whose name the agency bears, started his career in 16 in an ad agency's postroom.
What industries aren't meritocratic out of interest?
(in my experience the least meritocratic employers are in the public sector with their tightly structured pay scales and promotion based on age/tenure rather than ability)
Let's start with law and medicine.
Agree medicine is not at all meritocratic in the public sector but very much so in the private sector (which is why many of the best doctors do much/all of their work there).
With regard to law, it seems pretty meritocratic to me - if you're referring to the private sector then once qualified, there's a fast track to partnership if you are proficient and capable of winning business.
If anyone missed Theresa's trip to Plymouth yesterday to speak with ordinary people and think about Brexit, rather than a debate, the attached link will give you a feel for how successful it was. Video too, so no misrepresentation here and this quote says it all from the reporter Sam Blackledge...
Before 8.30am today, I had never interviewed a Prime Minister.
Heading back to the office to transcribe my encounter with Theresa May at Plymouth's fish market, I couldn't be certain that had changed.
I'm not sure what to read into this and am not posting this with a political lever to pull but in London only 41% of the 8,000 or so sleeping rough are UK nationals, whilst 37% are from Eastern European countries which joined the EU in 2004 or 2007.
The remainder are from other European countries (10%), Africa (6%), Asia (5%), The Americas (1%) and other (0.1%).
Source: CHAIN, Jun 2016.
I'm intrigued by 'and other'. Are the 0.1% literally illegal aliens. If you're not from Europe, Asia, Africa or the Americas where else could you come from?
I'm not sure what to read into this and am not posting this with a political lever to pull but in London only 41% of the 8,000 or so sleeping rough are UK nationals, whilst 37% are from Eastern European countries which joined the EU in 2004 or 2007.
The remainder are from other European countries (10%), Africa (6%), Asia (5%), The Americas (1%) and other (0.1%).
Source: CHAIN, Jun 2016.
I'm intrigued by 'and other'. Are the 0.1% literally illegal aliens. If you're not from Europe, Asia, Africa or the Americas where else could you come from?
There are lots of reasons for homeless people and I do think it shames us all. About time we had somebody from any party committed to doing something about it.
So outside of putting the bill on those who have fought to better themselves - a standard socialist approach - there are not any surprises. So at least they are staying consistent with their beliefs!
Do we consider if the higher corporation tax bills incurred by companies will have any effect on those people working there? The companies will look to make up the money elsewhere......
Income tax increases for the top 5%. Aside from the arguments I have already made here..... Think about the kinds of jobs that pay this kind of salary. People will likely have options to move to offices in other countries. And if you squeeze them and they have less money to spend into the economy - then there will be an element of one cancelling out the other.
Inheritance Tax raids? Will more and more people not find ways around this - such as downsizing on property and then passing on the cash to their kids / grandkids before they actually die? Meaning that the inheritance bill that Labour expect to tax is essentially lower?
Charging VAT on private school fees? Whether you like it or not, kids in private schools are afforded smaller classes and more attention from teachers. As they grow up - that attention they are afforded can then be paid back to society in the form of jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. Why punish the parents who choose to give their kids that opportunity?
Cracking down on Tax avoidance? I actually think in principle this sounds the fairest of the lot. However, if they think in practice these kinds of people wont find new ways to keep their money or leave the country all together then they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Or perhaps we can do something to give kids in the state school system the opportunity to have the time and attention afforded to them so that they too can have a crack at getting jobs that require high levels of qualification and expertise. why continue to cement the status quo and punish those that have to send their kids to state schools by confining them to a life of jobs that require less skill and qualifications
You make going to state school sound like going to the work house. I know plenty of successful people that haven't didn't even go to grammar school and are earning great money and leading prosperous careers
So do I. Especially in meritocratic industries like advertising.
But at a rough guess I would guess these people are aged 45 or over, right?
Times have changed. If you wanna get in at the advertising agency called Lowe nowadays you better have a damn good degree. MBA an advantage. Which is ironic, since Frank Lowe, whose name the agency bears, started his career in 16 in an ad agency's postroom.
What industries aren't meritocratic out of interest?
(in my experience the least meritocratic employers are in the public sector with their tightly structured pay scales and promotion based on age/tenure rather than ability)
Let's start with law and medicine.
Agree medicine is not at all meritocratic in the public sector but very much so in the private sector (which is why many of the best doctors do much/all of their work there).
With regard to law, it seems pretty meritocratic to me - if you're referring to the private sector then once qualified, there's a fast track to partnership if you are proficient and capable of winning business.
7% of the population are privately educated.
25% of medical/dental students come from private education.
74% of judges and 71% of QCs went to private schools. Private sector - nationally, 32% of partners attended private school, with this figure rising to 41% when London firms are looked at in isolation. In the magic circle it’s 50% (Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Linklaters, and Slaughter and May).
Lots to consider there as usual. I'll be fact checking a lot of your assertions with my Swedish mate. dont worry, he is far to the right of me, and is CEO of Haki, a scaffolding company. Nevertheless....
In the meantime, i am glad you brought up the issue of economic predictions of Remainers. I tried to explain ad nauseam that no sensible person with any economic background was predicting instant recession. My personal prediction was that we would see U.K. growth slowing to a rate lower than that in leading euro zone countries. ( wheats for most of last year it was outperforming most, as much touted by Bojo and co.
In that regard, what then are your comments about the Q1 GDP growth figures for,the U.K., and for the euro zone?
Never disputed the possibility of Brexit causing a short term drop in growth. Consumption is what drives our economy and anything that reduces consumer spending will hit output. There would be no double standards if I voted for Brexit, Corbyn and a recession.
If following Brexit, (the dumbest decision in the history of the World I am reliably informed), results in a 3% increase in unit cost of production, or even 10% on some goods, by way of EU tariffs, and is a disaster for UK profitability, can someone tell me why a 7% hit on actual profits themselves will have no impact on UK business that concerns a Corbyn Remain voter. Answers on the back of stamp.
Have people absorbed the significance of Dippy's answer? Here we have arguably the most intellectually rigorous Brexiteer on Cl, conceding that we could see a fall in GDP. In this respect he differs from those shrill immigration-fixated Brexiteers who denounced all such predictions as Project Fear. Respect.
And now here is the significance for the election and particularly health service funding. The Tories are promising increases in funding. And how will it be funded? From economic growth...
Ahem...
Sorry for trying to be honest. We have a binary choice between two parties but there is no binary outcome on the table, much as people pretend there is.
I believe we have hard times ahead, regardless of Brexit, and I just don't think Labour, as currently set up, have the tools to handle serious economic issues. If Labour is not even prepared to contemplate the difficulties of funding their programme I have little faith in their ability to handle unexpected economic problems.
I think the Tories are aware they are not going to have an easy four years without some serious economic upheavals. Not just because of Brexit, but because we have an unsustainable distorted housing market, because of fantasy land interest rates. The housing market must be corrected in a controlled way or it will self correct in an uncontrolled way. Interest rates will inevitably rise as will inflation and house prices will fall as sure as night follows day. Negative equity will halt consumer spending, buy-to-let landlords who have borrowed cheap money and are highly geared will go bankrupt, savers will get decent returns and investments will be confined to ventures that give returns commensurate with the risks. There will be winners and losers but GDP will be hit anytime consumer spending falls off whether Labour or the Tories are in power. More important than how the Tories would fund NHS funding increases in a recession, is how would Labour handle the massive shortfall in the cash they need to cover their pledges in the same recession.
The false sense of predictable Labour outcomes may be attractive, but the dour Tory manifesto I fear is a sign they anticipate difficult times and erred on the side of not making promises to get votes knowing they would otherwise have another 4 years of failed promises.
The majority of people, will vote on an entirely selfish basis of what's in it for me, and on that basis we should vote Labour, and just hope they can deliver. You don't win votes by being honest, both sides know that.
If Labour thought a few weeks ago that it had a chance of gaining power, and were led by someone with experience in leadership rather than campaigning, we would not have seen this manifesto. In truth it was written, in my view, as a propaganda piece to bolster the Corbyn roadshow, not a serious deliverable package. The lack of attention by the leadership to the seemingly unimportant minor matter of costings, is proof enough of that.
Sorry? So why is the Tory manifesto uncosted? Why not criticise them for a manifesto that thwy haven't the nerve (or the wit) to price? Criticise Labour, but in this case tge Yories are even more culpable.
Because they don't have a scooby too what it will cost or how the economy is going to move post Brexit. If the economy can't fund the spending, a government has to take decisions - set priorities, cut spending, tax or borrow.
If May thought she could get away with not having to pretend she knew where we are heading, and making promises just to meet voters' expectations to be bribed, I guess she was wrong.
Do you think just because Corbyn got a maths student to cobble up some figures to show the policies had been costed, that the leadership didn't even bother to jot down, they are worth anything more than yesterdays' chip paper?
Parties decide what they want to promise, then make the assumptions to make the figures add up. Just because you can magic up costs doesn't mean you can magic up the money to match what you actually have to spend.
Yes but it applies to both.
Where have i said or suggested it doesn't?
I don't believe the Corbyn figures any more than I wouldn't believe any Tory figures. Once a policy is put in place governments just borrow if they want to finish the job. When has anyone ver seen an attempt to hold them to account on how much was raised buy a particular budget and how much of it got spent on what? Attention span of the voters wouldn't make it worth the effort. All you get is a re-jig of numbers at the next budget with perhaps a passing reference as to why they need to borrow/tax/spend more than they thought originally.
The game is to try and present the figures to win votes as if you believe them, Corbyn and Abbott didn't do a good job.
If voters want to believe them fine, but deep down they don't care, as long as they think they will benefit from the promises, and anyway, why would you probe what you want to believe?
I'm not sure what to read into this and am not posting this with a political lever to pull but in London only 41% of the 8,000 or so sleeping rough are UK nationals, whilst 37% are from Eastern European countries which joined the EU in 2004 or 2007.
The remainder are from other European countries (10%), Africa (6%), Asia (5%), The Americas (1%) and other (0.1%).
Source: CHAIN, Jun 2016.
I'd be prepared to bet that a significant proportion of the Europeans would, in fact, be Irish and often relatively old.
It is a recognised feature of the emigrant experience that not all will find the streets paved with gold (even if they have employment) and, over time, as their wider immigrant cohort becomes more assimilated with the host nation, fail to move their lives on.
Single men, still living in middle age as they did when they were in their 20s, without savings or their own homes are quite vulnerable and, often, afraid to go home to where they may no longer know many people or where they fear being seen as failures.
The Irish government and charities (like the Aisling Project) have over the last few decades worked hard to bring back emigrants (even for brief holidays) who have not done so well.
Comments
Also just seen he's wanting to scrap the 30bn of student fee debt already owed. Wonder if that's coming from his money tree as well?
There were contributions from a total of 49 different posters which broke down as follows:
13 broadly pro or supportive of the Tories
27 broadly anti or critical of the Tories
9 where there wasn't an obvious leaning either way due to the nature of the post.
So yes, more anti's than pro as claimed but then again we have split views from Lab, Lib Dem & Green supporters versus Tory (and UKIP I expect) supporters so that might be expected. And certainly nowhere near the 85-90% bias claimed.
Yeah. I'm sad like that.
Get on to Jezza. With calculations like that you will have Abbotts job waiting if Labour get in power.
But at a rough guess I would guess these people are aged 45 or over, right?
Times have changed. If you wanna get in at the advertising agency called Lowe nowadays you better have a damn good degree. MBA an advantage. Which is ironic, since Frank Lowe, whose name the agency bears, started his career in 16 in an ad agency's postroom.
I like to think of it as installing solar panels on your roof. You might have to pay out a couple of thousand at first, but once you become fully self sufficient and even sell your excess solar energy back to the grid, it pays for itself many times over.
If you've got time, well worth a read. A wake up call to the absolute clusterfuck and shambles the housing market is in this country (especially london)
Shelter did some interesting work on this at the end of last year where they considered 4 sets of data -
- government statistics on rough sleepers (these are collected annually by local authorities and returned to government);
- statistics on those who are in temporary accommodation (again, returned to government on a quarterly basis by local authorities, and likely to include households who may eventually not be accepted as homeless)
- the number of people housed in hostels
- the number of people waiting to be housed by Social Services departments (for example, homeless 16 and 17 year olds who are accepted as a child in need under the Children Act and where Childrens Services have a responsibility to provide accommodation.)
As reported here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38157410
(in my experience the least meritocratic employers are in the public sector with their tightly structured pay scales and promotion based on age/tenure rather than ability)
The remainder are from other European countries (10%), Africa (6%), Asia (5%), The Americas (1%) and other (0.1%).
Source: CHAIN, Jun 2016.
The vast majority of internal public sector promotions will be by competition (in the Civil Service the most common means is by criteria based interviewing, your age and/or length of service have no impact); external recruitment is generally by competition also (and, in the case of Fast Stream entrants to the Civil Service can have young graduates leap frog many existing Civil Servants).
The complaint that you can have about this kind of promotion and recruitment is that it does not promote anyone on their actual ability to do their jobs, but on their ability to sell themselves at interview, once they have got that far.
In general, promotion based on tenure is generally in professional/technical etc. career paths, where indivivduals are actually promoted on ability.
Being, as I am, shy and retiring, I am not best placed to benefit from current promotion systems in the Northern Ireland Civil Service, but I'm very confident that I am equally competent (sometimes even more so) than numbers who have been promoted ahead of me.
No system is perfect, there will always be some promoted above their level of competence, by age and tenure arre not generally the deciding factors.
With regard to law, it seems pretty meritocratic to me - if you're referring to the private sector then once qualified, there's a fast track to partnership if you are proficient and capable of winning business.
Before 8.30am today, I had never interviewed a Prime Minister.
Heading back to the office to transcribe my encounter with Theresa May at Plymouth's fish market, I couldn't be certain that had changed.
Read more at http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/three-minutes-of-nothing-herald-reporter-reflects-on-pm-encounter/story-30363961-detail/story.html#oawEiALFps4BiW11.99
So...she's not only Strong and Stable, she's also now "Very Clear" on everything! What a bloody waste of time that was. Very Clear...As Mud!!
25% of medical/dental students come from private education.
74% of judges and 71% of QCs went to private schools. Private sector - nationally, 32% of partners attended private school, with this figure rising to 41% when London firms are looked at in isolation. In the magic circle it’s 50% (Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Linklaters, and Slaughter and May).
Meritocracy my arse.
I don't believe the Corbyn figures any more than I wouldn't believe any Tory figures. Once a policy is put in place governments just borrow if they want to finish the job. When has anyone ver seen an attempt to hold them to account on how much was raised buy a particular budget and how much of it got spent on what? Attention span of the voters wouldn't make it worth the effort. All you get is a re-jig of numbers at the next budget with perhaps a passing reference as to why they need to borrow/tax/spend more than they thought originally.
The game is to try and present the figures to win votes as if you believe them, Corbyn and Abbott didn't do a good job.
If voters want to believe them fine, but deep down they don't care, as long as they think they will benefit from the promises, and anyway, why would you probe what you want to believe?
It is a recognised feature of the emigrant experience that not all will find the streets paved with gold (even if they have employment) and, over time, as their wider immigrant cohort becomes more assimilated with the host nation, fail to move their lives on.
Single men, still living in middle age as they did when they were in their 20s, without savings or their own homes are quite vulnerable and, often, afraid to go home to where they may no longer know many people or where they fear being seen as failures.
The Irish government and charities (like the Aisling Project) have over the last few decades worked hard to bring back emigrants (even for brief holidays) who have not done so well.